Just came across this informative blog article by David Ardia, a lawyer at the Harvard Berkman Center. He describes a recent ruling on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a case that the New England Patriots filed against StubHub. The Pats bar fans from reselling their season tickets and want to hold online sites liable for the actions of ticket holders. The judge said that Section 230 did not give StubHub immunity. According to David:
In summary, StubHub profited as ticket prices increased; it didn’t require users to disclose what they paid for their tickets, thus making it harder to police its site; and it encouraged its best clients to buy low and sell high. Isn’t this the way most online auction sites work? Surely “knowing participation” isn’t coterminous with “materially contributing” to unlawful activity.
Using the factors described above is a troubling interpretation for Section 230, and has broad implications for online platforms and social networking sites – not just ticket exchanges. The court is sending a message that online sites should be the enforcer of private contracts to which they are not a party. This is an added obligation and potential liability that threatens the stated intent of Section 230, “to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media.”
Last week I attended the National Conference of State Legislators spring meeting here in Washington, DC. One of the panels was called “Social Networking 101”, and it was an interesting inside discussion centered on how legislatures and legislators are using Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking tools. Presenters were Sharon Crouch Steidel (Dir of IT for Virginia House of Delegates), Rep. Steve Harrelson from Arkansas, and Pam Greenberg of NCSL.
Rep. Harrelson described three main reasons for legislators to blog: (1) Immediacy – can get in front of the media story; (2) No filters – can tell the story how you want to, and can tell the whole story; (3) Transparency – tell constituents reasons for votes. His blog is amazingly complete.
According to Harrelson, his blog readers care more about politics, not policy issues. Reader traffic spikes when Harrelson talks about who was at what dinner/social event, or who is running for what seat, or committee maneuvering. One consideration is whether to allow readers to comment and if so, do you censor? Harrelson does not censor, and wonders whether it would be unconstitutional for him to do so using a state computer on state time.
Speakers complained about a flood of email. Policymakers hate canned email and they hate it when they can’t tell if email is actually from a constituent. Legislators and IT directors struggle with how to use social media for effective dialogues, not just emails that say “I support HB 555” 30,000 times. They also want technology that forces users to input their addresses, so they can have constituent mail readily identified.
Virginia is moving toward the use of Wikis for current bills. Continue reading →
If you’re from New Jersey and you like to drink wine — or just feel strongly that government shouldn’t be protecting alcohol distributors at the expense of competition and consumers — go to the UncorkNJ website and send a letter to your local representative in the General Assembly. New Jerseyans are barred from buying wine over the Web, and having it shipped to their home. The time to disintermediate is now!
Vivek Kundra spoke to a 150+ crowd at a Northern Virginia Technology Counsel event on Saturday morning in Tysons Corner. He has his speech crafted pretty well at this point, but did have interesting responses to one question on open standards from someone who said he was affiliated with the W3C, and another question about cloud computing.
One questioner asked about Kundra’s commitment to open standards as a way to increase government accountability and transparency. Kundra responded by differentiating between open data and open standards. He said that he’s deeply committed to opening up data to make it machine readable and easier for people to use/mix/mash. But, open standards is different — technology changes so fast that by the time one standard comes along, there’s another, and another, which is why government can’t lock-in on one standard.
Responding to another question about government use of cloud computing, Kundra was enthusiastic. He said that government should absolutely use lightweight consumer-based technology “for free” whenever it can. He did not define “free” which left me wondering what he meant exactly by free (call me skeptical, but nothing’s really free). Of course there are security issues, he said, but these can be addressed.
He also differentiated his role as CIO with Chopra’s role as CTO. Chopra will be responsible for crafting policy toward helath IT, education, and energy. Kundra manages the 10,000 federal IT systems and will focus on consolidation, cost-reduction and procurement.
Two phrases that Kundra uses over and over are “democratizing data” and using IT to create a “context-driven government.” Sounds good — and will be even better if the entrenched bureaucracy allows the conceptual sound bites to become reality.
ACT will host an event on open government tomorrow morning that will feature TLF’s own Jerry Brito and Andrew Plemmons Pratt of the Center for American Progress. I’ll moderate and tee-up the discussion.
We’ll focus on how governments can move from merely posting information online (e-government) to a more participatory process (we-government). We’ll discuss core concepts of “we” government—including the social media technologies that enable access, accountability and participation—and how Congress can create processes for a more transparent government:
- Define what being “open” means for the executive, legislative and judicial branches
- Review and update procedures and rules within government to better deliver information to citizens
- Create mechanisms for accepting and integrating increased constituent correspondence and comments on rulemakings
The Details: Tuesday, Apr 14 from 9:30 to 10:45am. It’s at the newly opened Capitol Visitors Center, Congressional Meeting Room South (the new main entrance to the U.S. Capitol, is located on the East front at First Street and East Capitol Street, NE). Coffee and morning snacks will be served. Please let me know if you’d like to attend!
Usually we hear that the Internet has created overabundance — an overload of information, communications, choices, all within easy
grasp of a single mouse click. So it came as a bit of a surprise when I read yesterday’s New York Times article about event tickets, and how the Internet is making it harder — not easier — on fans:
Fans complain that the once simple process of getting tickets has been transformed into a complex and expensive digital chore.
The article goes on to mention Craigslist, eBay, and TicketsNow as places where fans can go to purchase tickets. The perception is that tickets go very quickly on first sale (usually through Ticketmaster) and that the only real alternative is through the secondary market, where tickets for high demand events can be expensive.
And it’s possible that the Internet has increased the ability to purchase — and abuse — the process of buying tickets when they first go on sale. But compared to the old way, the Internet is a much better buying experience and increases opportunities for fans. I remember having to wait in line at the local Waxie Maxie record store for my tickets. Sometimes the system was slow and wouldn’t respond well (or was it the pimply-faced teen that didn’t give a darn behind the counter?). The sale would end before I even got to the counter. Overall, it was a painful experience. And while it may have been singular (as in only one option), it was certainly not simple to drive somewhere, wait in line, and only use cash (I’m dating myself).
So why this Times article, at this time? Concerts are way more important today. Continue reading →
There’s a great article in Online Media Daily that sums up all the reasons why New Jersey should not pass proposed legislation that requires social networking websites to be liable for abusive and harassing communications occurring on their sites.
A3757 was introduced this session and is part of a package of Internet safety legislation put forth by Attorney General Anne Milgram. The bill essentially strong-arms social networking sites into placing a conspicuous “report abuse” icon on web pages and to respond to and investigate alleged reports of harassment and bullying, or else be liable for violating the state’s consumer fraud act.
There are lots of problems to this bill. First, how to define what is and isn’t a social networking website? Social networking is not limited to just Facebook, MySpace or LinkedIn. There are thousands of other sites that have social networking features but aren’t thought of as a pure social network site. Define “social networking” too narrowly, and you may not include these other sites where harassment and bullying can occur. However, define “social networking” broadly and you create burdens and potential liability on many sites (particularly smaller) where there’s no real need for report abuse icons and formal procedures.
The article cites Prof. Eric Goldman at Santa Clara Law School saying that Sect. 230 of the Communications Decency Act would preempt civil lawsuits against websites. But would it preempt state enforcement of the fraud act? I’m not sure.
The article also cites Sam Bayard, assistant director of the Citizen Media Law Project, who says Continue reading →
Former Washington State Governor Gary Locke will likely face some grilling questions at his confirmation hearing tomorrow in the Senate. But will he face any questions about the future of the Internet?
Senators will likely grandstand over the census, the bailout, and the AIG bonuses. The future of Internet governance, however, will surely be sacrificed at the altar of politics. But as my colleague Mark Blafkin writes in his blog post, Al Gore may have invented the Internet, but the next Secretary will have a large role in determining its future:
As part of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA), the Department of Commerce is set to sever its agreement to backstop the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) at the end of the year. While the Department of Commerce plays no role in the day-to-day management of the Internet, it has played an important role in both holding ICANN accountable for its promises regarding private sector-leadership, and protecting ICANN from institutional capture. We should be thinking about asking these questions:
- Before the U.S. Government gives up oversight of ICANN, how do you believe the security of the core infrastructure of the Internet can be protected? For example, should NTIA agree to ICANN’s plan to take over all security management for the Internet root zone?
- How will ICANN’s accountability be ensured in the absence of Department of Commerce oversight – especially accountability to the private sector stakeholders?
- If ICANN is fully privatized, what can be done to protect ICANN from capture by foreign governments or the United Nations, which has asserted its own right to manage “Critical Internet Resources” – not the private sector?
These questions are of interest to many in the Internet governance community, if not Commerce Committee.
According to a new connectivity scorecard created by Leonard Waverman of the London Business School, it’s not the pure size of connections that matter, er, it’s how we use our broadband that really matters. As a result, Americans are more “connected” than we think. We come out #1 (followed by Sweden and Denmark). The report differs from typical studies that rate the U.S. as 11th or 16th (or whatever the latest number) and generally give countries like Korea high regards for their broadband, per the report’s FAQ:
The Connectivity Scorecard is an attempt to capture how “usefully connected” countries around the world really are. Like any Scorecard, ours is essentially a collection of different metrics, but our metrics encompass usage and skills as well as infrastructure. Further, we recognize that the primary driver of productivity and economic growth is the ability of businesses to use ICT effectively. Thus we give business – and those measures related to business infrastructure and usage – the weight that economic statistics suggest it should be given.
So take that, Korea!
“Open government” can mean various things to different people, but a couple of articles I’ve recently
read suggest that solutions for opening the government vault of information should focus on the “way” and not the “what.”
Why is this distinction important? Well, it takes the initial focus away from vendors lobbying that their products are more “open” and forces governments to reexamine how they collect, store and disseminate data. It is this hard look that will really make the difference, I think. And there are two interesting articles that highlight processes toward openness.
The first is an article by Daniel Ballon at PRI, where he writes about the perils of being too vendor focused when making government more open. He developed an illustrative table where he breaks down three purposes for technology in promoting transparency (transparency, government communication with citizens, and government collaboration with third-party sites). There will be different government processes needed for each purpose — for instance, creating ways for private systems to more easily data mine public databases.
The second is an article by Douglas McGray of New America Foundation in the Jan/Feb edition of the Atlantic Monthly. McGray hypes up the importance of API documentation. Governments should publish API information and allow the development of third-party applications to more easily synchronize with government databases. While McGray confuses open formats (such as releasing data in text, comma delimited format) with APIs (documentation that tells programmers how to interact with a specific application), the article is still instructional.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.